SADHA RAM SATNAMI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ application is an unfortunate dispute between the petitioner, an Ex-Trollyman of the Bokaro Colliery, P. O. Bermo, district Hazaribagh which has been nationalised and now under the control of Respondent No. 3, National Coal Development Corporation, which during the pendency of this writ application reached the Apex Court of the country and had resulted in compromise therein in Civil Appeal No. 709 of 1981 at the instance of the petitioner filed against the Judgment and order dated March 13, 1990 of this Court in S. A. No. 743 of 1977 (which in its turn had arisen out of T.S. No. 18 of 1967 filed by the Appellant of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh) in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court had passed the following order: "The Appeal above-mentioned being called on for hearing before this Court on April 29, 1988 and upon being mentioned on March 10, 1988 and upon perusing the record and hearing counsel for the parties herein--this Court in substitution of the High Court's order under appeal DOTH PASS the following ORDER: *Shri C. V. Subha Rao, learned Counsel for the respondents, Central Coal Fields Limited, after consulting the Officer of Central Coal Fields Limited who has to come to the Court to instruct him, submits that in full settlement of the claims of the appellant, Central Coal Field Limited is willing to pay the appellant a sum of Rs. 80,000 on the appellant vacating the quarters in which he is living and handing over possession thereof to the Central Coal Fields Limited. He also further submits that Dhan Kumar Tandon one of the appellants, would be appointed within six months in any suitable vacancy, in which he can be appointed under Central Coal Fields Limited. Shri M. P. Jha, learned Counsel for the appellant accepts the proposal of Shri C. V. Subha Rao, and submits that the appellant will receive in full settlement of all his claims the sum of Rs. 80,000 after handing over the possession of the quarters to the Central Coal Fields Limited within four months." This COURT DOTH FURTHER ORDER THAT THE ORDER of this Court dated March 27, 1981, passed in the Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 5296 of 1981, in the said appeal, be and is hereby vacated; AND THIS COURT DOTH LASTLY ORDER that this order be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. WITNESS THE HON'BLE Shri Raghunandan Swarup Pathak, Chief Justice of India At the Supreme Court, New Delhi, dated this April 29, 1988" : May 10, 1988.

(2.) The petitioner has come to this Court for quashing of the orders passed by the Original as well as Appellate Authorities under the Payment, of Wages Act, 1936 (respondent Nos. 5 and 4 respectively) as contained in Annexures 2 and 1 respectively. The petitioner claims that he was in occupation of quarter No. 530 till May 1, 1960 which was allotted to him and in terms of Exhibit-B, and award of the Appellate Tribunal at Calcutta, he was entitled to his accommodation free of rent. The petitioner as dismissed from service in 1964 with effect from April 10, 1964 through Memo dated September 10, 1964 (Annexure-3) passed by the Manager, (respondent No. 2) for being in unauthorised occupation of the said quarter. The rent of Rs. 28-50 was illegally deducted from his salary on account of his occupation of the said quarter. On November 2, 1962 the petitioner filed Payment of Wages Case Nos. 80 of 1962, 61 of 1962 on July 2, 1962 and 47 of 1964 on September 2, 1964 for illegal deductions. The Respondents illegally took up stand that the said quarter was never allotted to the petitioner as it was meant for the officers and not for him and thus his occupation was unauthorised and thus the management was entitled to deduct rent under Section 7(2) (d) read with Section 11 of the Payment of Wages Act. The petitioner also filed T.S. No. 18 of 1967 for granting a decree declaring that his dismissal was wrongful, illegal, void and inoperative and against natural justice and also for granting decree of Rs. 5,673 with interest. According to the petitioner he was allotted the said quarter by the appropriate authority and the deduction by the Respondent was illegal. The findings recorded in the impugned order are perverse and thus they are liable to be set aside by this Court. It has been asserted in Paragraph-8 of the writ petition that the matter connected with this suit is pending disposal in the Supreme Court.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in which it has been stated that the writ application is not maintainable before this Court because an application lay under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner was not entitled to the quarter in question and that since he had occupied the quarter in question forcibly rents were validly deducted from his salary. The orders in question have been correctly passed. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also filed a separate application on March 6, 1989 praying to pass appropriate orders in view of the disposal of the matter by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Application No. 709 of 1981 on compromise appending a photostat copy of the certified copy of the proceedings before the Supreme Court as Annexure-4.